Judgment :- G.M. AKBAR ALI,J., 1. Appeals filed under Sec.96 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.699 of 2000 dated 19.3.2003, O.S.No.258 of 2000 dated 27.10.2003 and O.S.No.259 of 2000 dated 27.10.2003. 2. In all these appeals, the issue involved is one and the same. Therefore, a common judgment is delivered. 3. The appeals are directed against the dismissal of the suit filed for with the prayers to cancel a sale deed in respect of the properties which are acquired by private negotiations from the respondents by the Government. The facts leading to the present appeals are as follows: 4. The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Kangeyam submitted proposals for the purchase of land in Mudalipalayam village, Kangeyam, through private negotiations. The lands are to be acquired for the purpose of granting allotment to the landless Adi Dravidas under Adi Dravida Welfare scheme. The appellants offered their lands by their applications dated 13.11.1995 for acquisition by private negotiation. The Special Tahsildar, filed a report recommending the land value at Rs.1,00,000/-per acre. The Government constituted a Committee called District Level Private Negotiation Committee under the Chairmanship of District Collector and three other members viz., District Revenue officer, Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Collector and District Adi Dravida Welfare Officer, who shall be the Convenor. 5. The report of the Special Tahsildar was considered by the District Level Private Negotiation committee (hereinafter referred to as Committee) which met on 7.10.1996 and decided to purchase the land at the rate of Rs.1,75,000/-per acre. Necessary orders were passed by the Collector. A sale deed was prepared and presented before the Sub Registrar, Dharapuram on 5.11.1996 and the same was registered on 2.12.1996. The registration fees and other expenses were paid by the vendor. The land owner received part of their amounts however, the possession was not handed over. Later, it was found out that the sale consideration has been boosted up by showing sale deeds which did not reflect the correct market value. Several complaints were received stating certain irregularities in fixing the land value. 6. The Joint Director of Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department verified various sales and has found that the vendors and the officials have colluded with each other and the correct sales statistics were not produced before the committee which fixed the land value. Several complaints were received stating certain irregularities in fixing the land value. 6. The Joint Director of Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department verified various sales and has found that the vendors and the officials have colluded with each other and the correct sales statistics were not produced before the committee which fixed the land value. It was found that for a land purchased on 7.2.1996 for a sum of Rs.1,45,700/- by the respondent in A.S.No.887 of 2003, the value has been fixed at Rs.15,90,750/- on 7.10.1996. 7. Disciplinary actions were taken against the officials involved in the transaction. The land owner was informed that the Government is prepared to execute a release deed relinquishing the rights. Instead of appearing before the Collector, the land owner filed writ petition and this court while disposing of the writ petitions permitted the Government to go before the civil court for the relief of setting aside the sale deeds. 8. Therefore original suits were filed inter-alia stating that there is gross violation in fixing the land value and the Committee was misled and false information were given to the Committee only to obtain an exorbitant rate. The sale consideration was also not paid. Therefore, there is no effective sale and on these grounds, the state represented by the District Collector, Erode and the Adiri Dravidar Welfare Officer, Erode filed the suits in O.S.Nos.258, 259 of 2000, 699 of 2000. The defendants therein resisted the suit by filing their written statement stating that the sale is valid and the correct land value was fixed and the suit was also not maintainable. 9. The defendants made a counter claim of payment of sale consideration. 10. The parties went for trial separately in all the three suits before the Additional Sub Court, Erode. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit filed by the Government, however, granted the counter claim and directed the Government to pay the balance sale consideration. 11. Aggrieved by which, appeal No. A.S.No.887 has been preferred against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.699 of 2000; A.S.No.966 of 2004 has been preferred against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.258 of 2000 and A.S.No.308 of 2005 has been preferred against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.259 of 2000. 12. 11. Aggrieved by which, appeal No. A.S.No.887 has been preferred against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.699 of 2000; A.S.No.966 of 2004 has been preferred against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.258 of 2000 and A.S.No.308 of 2005 has been preferred against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.259 of 2000. 12. When the matter was taken up, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that in A.S.No.966 of 2004 and 308 of 2005, the matter has been settled between the parties and the Government and they have obtained release deed from the Government and the private sale was set aside. Therefore, A.S.No.966 of 2004 and 308 of 2005 are dismissed as infructious. However, the respondent in AS No.887 of 2003 preferred to contest the appeal. 13. Mr.S. Navaneethakrishnan, the learned Advocate General appeared for the appellant Government and Mr.D. Krishnakumar, learned counsel appeared for Mr.S. Saravanan, the learned counsel for the respondent/vendor. 14. Before adverting to the arguments of the learned Advocate General and also the learned counsel for the respondent/vendor, it is necessary to advert to certain admitted facts. 15. Under G.O.Ms.No.146 dated 14.8.95, the Government had constituted a committee called District Level Private Negotiation committee under the Chairmanship of the District Collector. The District Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub collector and the District Adi Dravida Welfare officer are the members. The purpose of the committee was to purchase lands through private negotiations for the purpose of allotment of the same for the welfare of the landless Adidravida. The respondent K.Kuppuswamy offered an extent of 7.26 acres in S.F.No.277 of Kongadanpalayam village for private negotiations at Rs.3,00,000/-per acre.. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare sent a proposal for the purchase of the same at Rs.3,00,000/-per acre. 16. The report of Village Administrative Officer was called for. He had stated that the land value in that area is around Rs.1,00,000/-per acre. A spot inspection was conducted by the District Revenue Officer on 2.10.1996. He found that the guideline value was at Rs.2,50,000/- and as per sale statistics of other land, the price was around Rs.1,10,000/-per acre. He had filed a report to that effect. 17. He had stated that the land value in that area is around Rs.1,00,000/-per acre. A spot inspection was conducted by the District Revenue Officer on 2.10.1996. He found that the guideline value was at Rs.2,50,000/- and as per sale statistics of other land, the price was around Rs.1,10,000/-per acre. He had filed a report to that effect. 17. The District Committee met on 7.10.1996 and on perusal of the sales statistics and also the report of the district revenue officer, the committee fixed the land value at Rs.2,70,000/-per acre and fixed the total sale consideration at Rs.19,16,200/-to the vendor. 18. The proceeding dated 31.10.1996 was also issued by the 1st appellant. Another proceedings was also issued directing the land owner to prepare and present the sale deed on his expenses and on completion of registration and on taking possession, the authorities were directed to disburse the sale consideration. 19. Accordingly, the respondent had prepared the sale deed and on payment of the registration charges, the sale deed was executed and registered on 31.10.1996 by the Sub Registrar, Sivagiri. The sale deed was executed on 6.11.96 and registered on 5.12.96 in document No.1356 of 96. 20. The respondent, in fact, has purchased the said property under acquisition on 7.2.1996 for a sum of Rs.1,45,700/-and obtained patta in his name on 19.2.96. Then he applied to the Special Tahsildar, ADW that he was willing to sell the land to the Government through private negotiation. 21. On 1.3.96, the Special Tahsildar, addressed the Sub Registrar, Sivagiri calling for the information about the guideline value. On 13.6.96, the Sub Registrar, informed that the guideline value was Rs.2,50,000/-. The Special Tahildar gathered the sales statistics for the period from 1.6.95 to 30.6.96 through the Village Administrative Officer. However, the above sale dated 7.2.96 was not included in the sales statistics. 22. A sale, in SF No.242/2 dated 26.2.96 under which 0.55 acres of land was sold for Rs.1,65,000/- which works out to Rs.3,00,000/-per acre, was taken into consideration. 23. Obviously, the land owner had also claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-per acre and the District Revenue Officer had also filed a report along with Village Administrative Officer’s statement. On the basis of the guideline value and the available sales statistics, the District Level Committee fixed the land value at Rs.2,70,000/-per acre on 7.10.1996. 24. 23. Obviously, the land owner had also claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-per acre and the District Revenue Officer had also filed a report along with Village Administrative Officer’s statement. On the basis of the guideline value and the available sales statistics, the District Level Committee fixed the land value at Rs.2,70,000/-per acre on 7.10.1996. 24. According to the appellants, without the knowledge of the purchase of the above land by the respondent on 7.2.1996 for a sum of Rs.1,45,700/- within eight months he has enriched himself a sum of Rs.19,60,200/-. 25. According to the appellants, there was a collusion between the officials who recommended the sales statistics and a fraud was played upon the Government by suppression of information and the sale was effected. It is also pertinent to note that the vendor himself has paid the registration fee and prepared the documents and the document was presented for registration. 26. The learned Advocate General submitted that the valid sale is not effected and therefore, it is liable to be canceled. The learned Advocate General referred to the definition of sale under Sec.54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Advocate General also pointed out that in the absence of passing of sale consideration, the sale is not effected. 27. According to the learned Advocate General, the intention of the respondent is to cheat the Government and an unjust enrichment by way of sale cannot be accepted. 28. It is also further contended that possession was also not handed over and no transfer of title has been effected and when the object of the sale is illegal, the sale deed is not enforceable and liable to be canceled. 29. On the other hand, Mr.D. Krishnakumar, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that having accepted the offer and on the basis of the report submitted by the District Revenue Officer and also considering the guideline value under a comparable sales for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ per acre, the Committee had fixed the value at Rs.2,70,000/-per acre which reflected the correct market value. 30. The learned counsel pointed out that only on the proceedings of the first appellant sale deed has been prepared, executed and presented for registration and deferred payment of sale consideration will not vitiate the transfer. 30. The learned counsel pointed out that only on the proceedings of the first appellant sale deed has been prepared, executed and presented for registration and deferred payment of sale consideration will not vitiate the transfer. The learned counsel pointed out that a writ petition has been filed by the respondent in which this Court has found that the sale cannot be canceled by the 1st respondent and the alleged fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the vendor was not established. He relied on 1972 2 MLJ 406 where a similar question of non payment of balance consideration was discussed and this Court had held that if the intention is that the property should pass on registration, the sale is complete as soon as the deed is registered whether the price has been paid or not. 31. In 1999 (3) SCC 573 (Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao and another) where the Apex court has held that actual payment of full price at the time of execution of sale deed is not sine-qua-non for completion of sale. 32. We have carefully considered the rival contentions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 33. The appellant Government has come forward for the cancellation of sale on the following grounds: a) When the respondent had purchased the property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,45,700/- on 7.2.1996 and has offered the same for private negotiation immediately thereafter and on 1.3.96 a proposal was sent and when the sales statistics were called for to be placed before the Committee, the respondent’s sale did not found place. The sale dated 26.2.1996 was projected as the highest sale price of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre and the Committee without the knowledge of the above facts, has fixed the sale price at RS.2,70,000/- per acre. This, according to the appellant, is an unjust enrichment and there is a collusion between the vendor and the officials and a fraud was played upon the Government. b) The sale consideration has not been paid and therefore, the sale is not effected. c) Possession was not taken and therefore, the sale is not complete. 34. It is pertinent to consider the Sec.54 of Transfer of Property which reads as follows: Sale defined :-“Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. c) Possession was not taken and therefore, the sale is not complete. 34. It is pertinent to consider the Sec.54 of Transfer of Property which reads as follows: Sale defined :-“Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Salehow made:-Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale:-A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. As far as the price is concerned, the provision contemplates ‘paid or promised or part paid or part promise’. 35. In 1999 3 SCC 573 (Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao and another), the Apex Court has considered Sec.54 of the Transfer of Property Act and has held as follows: “(36.) The definition indicates that in order to constitute a sale, there must be a transfer of ownership from one person to another, i.e, transfer of all rights and interests in the properties which are possessed by that person are transferred by him to another person. The transferor cannot retain any part of his interest or right in that property or else it would not be a sale. The definition further says that the transfer of ownership has to be for a `price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction of sale. The words `price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised indicate that actual payment of the whole of the price at the time o the execution of sale deed is not a sine qua non to the completion of the sale. Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction of sale. The words `price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised indicate that actual payment of the whole of the price at the time o the execution of sale deed is not a sine qua non to the completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid but the document is executed and thereafter registered, if the property is of the value of more than Rs.100,the sale would be complete” 36. Therefore, actual payment of the whole of the price at the time of the execution of sale deed is not a sine qua non to the completion of the sale. The term used in the provision are, paid or partly paid or promised to be paid at a later point of time. The non payment of the sale price at the time of the execution of sale deed will not render the sale deed ineffective. Therefore, the argument that the sale consideration is not passed to effect a valid sale can not be countenanced. 37. In 1972 2 MLJ 406 (The Melur Co-operative Marketing Society rep by its President vs Salia Mariam and Ors), this court has held as follows: Similarly, if the possession is not handed over it is for the purchaser to sue the vendor for possession and having failed to take possession the Government cannot repudiate the sale. (7.) The principle deducible from the foregoing decisions is that payment of the price is not necessarily a sine qua non to the completion of the sale. If the intention is that the property should pass on registration, the sale is complete as soon as the deed is registered, whether the price has been paid or not. Then the purchaser is entitled to sue for possession, although he has not paid the price. This would follow from the words of Section 54 price paid or promised or part paid or part-promised. If the price is not paid, the seller on that account cannot repudiate the sale and his only remedy is to sue for the price or the balance of the price unpaid” Therefore, the argument that the possession was not taken also can not be countenanced. 38. If the price is not paid, the seller on that account cannot repudiate the sale and his only remedy is to sue for the price or the balance of the price unpaid” Therefore, the argument that the possession was not taken also can not be countenanced. 38. As far as the unjust enrichment and the intention of the respondent to cheat the government is concerned, it is obvious that the respondent had purchased the property on 7.2.96 for a sum of Rs.1,45,700/- and stood gain by 18 times viz., for a sale consideration of Rs.19,60,200/- within 8 months. 39. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the appellant cannot allege any suppression of information. The learned counsel pointed out that the title deeds of the appellant was subjected for legal opinion before the Government Pleader which is marked as Ex.A.3 and the document dated 7.2.96 was also perused by the Government through Government Pleader. We are of the considered view that there is considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent who would submit that the committee has considered the highest value of Rs.3,00,000/-per acre and the guideline value at Rs.2,50,000/-per acre and has fixed the land value at Rs.2,70,000/-per acre. 40. Even according to the appellant, when the comparable sales statistics were placed, the sale deed dated 7.2.96 under which the respondent had purchased the property was not placed before the Committee. However, it cannot be said that they have not come across the said sale deed as the Government Pleader has given his legal opinion on the title deeds. 41. Though there is vast difference between the sale deed dated 7.2.96 under which the respondent had purchased the property and the impugned sale deed under which he has sold the property for Rs.19,60,200/- one cannot lose sight of the fact that the committee had considered the highest sale price and the guideline value and thereafter only fixed the land value. Therefore, the appellant has no reason to approach this court to cancel the sale deed. 42. For the reasons stated above the appeal in A.S.No.887 of 2003 fails and the same is dismissed and decree and judgment of the II Additional Sub Court, Erode in A.S.No.699 of 2000 dated 19.3.2003 is confirmed. Appeals in A.S.Nos.966 of 2004 and 308 of 2005 are dismissed as infructious.